Standing Committee G

[Mr. Win Griffiths in the Chair]

Education Bill

Clause 118 - Power to prescribe pay and conditions

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 529, in page 73, line 35, at end insert: 
''(except where it is agreed between the parties that a services contract is exempt from the provisions of this Part).''.—[Mr. Brady.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Win Griffiths: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 526, in page 73, line 39, after ''carry out'' insert ''only''.
 Amendment No. 527, in page 73, line 40, at end insert: 
''(e) he carries out work of a kind which is specified by regulations under section 129(1) for part of his contracted hours, in which case powers under section 118 may be applied to that proportion of the contracted hours.''.
 Amendment No. 528, in page 74, line 20, at end insert: 
 ''( ) Nothing in this or other education legislation shall prevent a local education authority or governing body from employing a teacher on a contract for services.''.

Graham Brady: Before we adjourned, I was about to say how grateful we are for the Minister's comments on the amendments. He gave some useful assurances; for example, that there will be a more detailed exposition under clause 129 of the Government's thinking on the work that is reserved for teachers. We look forward to that discussion.
 We also received greater clarification about teachers employed on a contract of services. The assurance that schools are already permitted to employ teachers on such a basis means that amendment No. 528 is not necessary, but the discussion that ensued about the rules pertaining to pay and conditions for such teachers was helpful. 
 I am happy with the assurance of further discussion under clause 129 and, with the useful information that we have gleaned, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 118 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 The Chairman: Before we move on, I should just say that, in the event of a miracle that gets us to the end of today's business, we will have a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee to cancel Monday's sitting. That may be an incentive to hon. Members.Clause 119Order under section 118: scope

Clause 119 - Order under section 118: scope

Graham Brady: In the spirit of your guidance, Mr. Griffiths, we have already discussed the central point of amendment No. 523 regarding the upper and lower limits to be set by the STRB. There would be no useful purpose in further discussion and, therefore, I do not intend to move the amendment.

Phil Willis: I beg to move amendment No. 514, in page 75, line 1, leave out '(b)' and insert:
 ''(2A)An order under section 118 may.''
 I will keep my discussion as brief as possible, having cognisance of your advice, Mr. Griffiths. The Committee can have me for the whole afternoon, as I was kicked off the ''Richard and Judy'' sofa. I gather that the viewing figures will plummet as a result. 
 The amendment is important because clause 118 is wide ranging and gives significant additional powers to the Secretary of State, as we discovered in the debate this morning. The amendment proposes that any order under clause 118 may be bargained rather than determined through the full review body structure. I hope that the Minister agrees to the amendment because, although formal structures exist for that purpose, the more that can be done through informal bargaining, the better. It speeds up the process, gets a better decision and satisfies all the parties. I trust that the Minister will support this minor amendment.

Stephen Timms: The amendment is rather less minor than the hon. Gentleman has suggested. It would give my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the power to determine that any matters that were the subject of a pay order, rather than just the specific items listed, should be settled by agreement at local level. That would wholly undermine the School Teachers Review Body process. We do not want to move wholly to local negotiation. It is appropriate for some elements, but we do not want to impose on schools the burden and difficulty of doing everything locally rather than through the STRB mechanism as at present. That would lead to significant discrepancies between different parts of the country, which would concern some Committee members.
 The current process works well and is fair and independent. It is appropriate for a professional group in the public sector such as teachers. I oppose the amendment on the grounds that we do not want to move to a system in which all the matters are determined locally.

Phil Willis: That is exactly the response that I expected from the Minister, who has seen through this minor amendment. It has, however, enabled us to
 establish that the Government are not clear on where they want to go on the issue. On one hand, they want innovation and earned autonomy, which includes moving away from pay and conditions, but on the other, they want a control system through the STRB. I support the national framework, so I support the Minister on that point, but there is a clear contradiction between the Government's spin on freedoms and the controls at the other end. The Minister has spotted the extent of the amendment, which has been debated. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Phil Willis: I beg to move amendment No. 515, in page 75, line 10, leave out subsection (4).
 I confess that this is a major and important amendment. Clause 119 tells the Secretary of State that she has unprecedented powers over the areas concerning teachers' pay and conditions, which is not a good thing. This morning, I mentioned the Labour party's commitment to the International Labour Organisation convention. It signed the 1998 convention, but with virtually everything that it does in the public sector, it is moving away from such conventions. That direction may be a clear policy, and it may come from the No. 10 policy unit, which the Secretary of State must abide by, but we should challenge it and caution people about it. 
 The provision in the Bill would get over the problems that the Government had in 2000 with the National Union of Teachers in the High Court, when they tried unilaterally to introduce performance-related pay by arguing that the amendment was so minor that they did not need to consult the STRB or the professional associations or seek affirmative resolution in the House. 
 I accept that there is some transparency with the STRB and that, as the Minister said, it has, by and large, worked reasonably well over the past 10 years. It is important for me to acknowledge that on the record, too. One attraction is that all the evidence that goes to the STRB is transparent and published. We see the Government's evidence, for what the professional associations are bidding and what the local authorities want. It is all published and above board. However, clause 119 will go further than that. It will allow the Secretary of State to decide what is a minor matter. It will not be good to have all the powers with the Secretary of State, no matter how good the current one is. 
 In answer to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband) who said this morning that it would be good for teachers, I now have figures. In 1992, the average teacher's pay was worth 118 per cent. of average non-manual salaries; by 2001, that had fallen to 108 per cent. A 10 per cent. drop may not seem that much to the hon. Gentleman with his vast wealth 
 coming out of South Shields, but it is for teachers. Teachers' salaries during that period have not been as generous as the hon. Gentleman would have us believe. He has had a sheltered existence in the No. 10 policy unit, but even he will know that year on year, the staged pay awards to which teachers were subjected under the previous Government made a significant difference to their overall rise in earnings. Giving teachers staged pay awards to meet the Exchequer's demands was an abominable way of treating them. 
 The amendment would remove subsection (4) and curtail the powers of the Secretary of State. It would mean that she could not decide on all the issues herself; she would have to go through the process of the STRB or get affirmative resolutions. That would be a good protection for teachers, and I hope that the Minister will see its sense and agree to the amendment.

Stephen Timms: The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) raised several matters in moving the amendment, and I shall respond to some of them at least. Removing subsection (4) would not have an impact on the NUT judicial review. There are measures in other clauses, particularly in clause 121, that would have an impact, but subsection (4) does not. He said that we were taking unprecedented powers, but that is not true. There is nothing new, and the subsection is simply a replication of what was in the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991.
 The hon. Gentleman referred also to the STRB process. He will acknowledge that STRB recommendations since 1997 have been met in full. There has been a 25 per cent. increase in the salary of good, experienced teachers during that time. Things have gone well, and the STRB process has been an important element. As he did this morning, he raised the question of the International Labour Organisation. We satisfy the ILO entirely on our approach to these matters. 
 The amendment would not benefit teachers. There will be circumstances in which the flexibility that subsection (4) permits will be helpful. It will allow payments to be made to teachers that are not part of remuneration and can be determined locally. For example, golden hellos can be paid, and other one-off payments that are not appropriate for consideration by the STRB because of their limited effect and lifespan require the flexibility. It is important that matters that are not core professional duties or working time may be determined locally, a point that the hon. Gentleman made recently. To remove that flexibility would not help. I hope that he will accept my explanation and withdraw the amendment.

Phil Willis: The matter will be raised again during consideration of clause 121. Having heard the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 121 - Reference to review body

Phil Willis: I beg to move amendment No. 121, in page 75, line 43, leave out subsections (3)(a), (b) and (c).

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 122, in page 76, line 16, after ''118'', insert ''or 121''.
 No. 500, in page 76, line 16, after ''section 118'' insert: 
''nor may he make an order under subsection (4) of section 121''.

Phil Willis: Amendment No. 121 would remove the Secretary of State's new powers over the pay and conditions of every teacher in the land. The Secretary of State should justify why those powers are needed as well as the current powers that are provided through the School Teachers Pay Review Body.
 Amendment No. 500 recognises that the Secretary of State is trying to overcome a High Court decision granted in favour of the National Union of Teachers. I know that the Secretary of State did not like the High Court action, and I understand why. However, an important point of principle is at stake, which the legislation will overturn. Whether we like or dislike the STRB and the Act that created it, it is an open and transparent system. The Secretary of State will now decide whether an issue is serious enough for her to avoid the affirmative resolution procedure, or consultation through the STRB. The Secretary of State alone can make those decisions, which must set alarm bells ringing for every Committee member. If a Secretary of State has those powers, she will use them because they circumvent a lot of hassle. 
 The purpose of the amendments is to point out that the powers are unnecessary, and that it should not be the Secretary of State who decides unilaterally that a change is minor. It should be the partners in the agreement who take that decision. None of us would be happy if we had reached agreement, whether we liked it or not, and then found that one party wanted to vary it because that suited their purpose. 
 In many cases, there will not be any disagreement. Many of the variations to the STRB's recommendation during the last 10 years have gone through without needing an affirmative resolution, and without needing to exercise such powers because there has been general agreement. We cannot believe that every Secretary of State will act in such a benign way. I remind Government Members of what happened between 1988 and 1997. Draconian legislation was passed at that time, part of which had a serious effect on teachers and the morale in our schools, and we are still struggling with that, if I am honest. That is not just a new phenomenon. 
 I hope that the Minister will take the amendments as a whole rather than spend a lot of time on each one, and that he will respond to the principal issue that I 
 have raised about the Secretary of State overcoming the High Court action and trying to legislate to give herself more powers.

Stephen Timms: The issues with which the clause deals have been worked through with the support of the STRB and in recognition of the concern expressed by the chairman of the STRB to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that its work load had become too burdensome. In 1991, when the STRB was established, it was never intended that it should be expected to deal with every detail of matters relating to pay and conditions. Given the voluntary nature of that body, it would be unreasonable to expect it to do so.
 The 1991 Act sought to make provision for the Secretary of State to deal with some matters. However, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough reminded the Committee, experience showed that the wording of the Act was insufficient to enable that to take place. Subsections (3)(a) and (b) were drawn up in the light of that experience. We plan to ensure that the matters covered by those subsections relate to the criteria for entering or leaving the fast-track teaching programme, advanced skills teacher status, and the standards for crossing the threshold to the upper pay scale. Criteria and standards on all those matters already exist. We are talking about any amendments or revisions that may be necessary. No such changes are currently planned. The Secretary of State set those standards without reference to the STRB until the July 2000 High Court judgment on the NUT case. That state of affairs was generally accepted. We are proposing to return to the position that almost everyone thought prevailed. 
 I listened with interest to the points made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. The proposed arrangement is unusual, and is an example of the Henry VIII powers that are frequently, and usually erroneously, referred to in our debates. This is the real thing. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about a provision that allows the Secretary of State to use secondary legislation to amend provisions of the Act. I want to reflect on his point, and to consider how we could achieve a requirement for specific consultation in any cases in which clause 121, including subsection (5), applies. I shall revisit the issue after such consideration if that is appropriate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find that a helpful response to his concerns.

Phil Willis: That is a more than helpful response to my concerns. I am glad that the Minister recognises that the guidance and the criteria that were created as a result of the threshold assessment were far-reaching. It is important to have good mechanisms. I regard the clause as a Baroness Thatcher clause rather than a Henry VIII clause. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 122 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 123 - Guidance

Phil Willis: I beg to move amendment No. 501, in page 76, line 29, leave out 'an employer' and substitute:
'a local authority or the governing body of a school'.
 This is a simple amendment, and I hope that the Minister will see the sense of it. Either the local authority or the governing body will be the employer, except for contract staff, which is the issue that we are talking about at the moment. However, even in those circumstances it will be the governing body or the local education authority that buys in the contract staff, unless we privatise the whole of our education system. In which case the employer would, I presume, be a private sector contractor. 
 In Islington, for example, I do not know whether the Cambridge Education Associates or Islington council employs the staff. I presume that Islington local education authority actually employs the staff.

Stephen Timms: The teaching staff.

Phil Willis: Yes, the teaching staff. The Government may well move away from that in the future. They may envisage the whole-scale privatisation of parts of the system.
 Independent schools will be set up under later provisions of the Bill on academies, and there will be nothing to stop 3Es, to which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) referred this morning, setting up such a school. The Minister let slip, perhaps deliberately, that that company will not be subject to any of the terms and conditions of the STRB. Therefore, it will become a separate employer. 
 I would like a belt and braces approach to be taken, and to tighten up the provision by specifying in subsection (3) the local education authority and the governing body as the employer. The amendment would ensure consistency of legislation, and that a court would take into account any failure on the part of the governing body or the local education authority to follow the guidance.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman speculated about Islington, and things may have changed since April last year. I think that in the London borough of Southwark, when the nursery school provisions of the current contract take effect, nursery schoolteachers will be employed by W.S. Atkins.

Phil Willis: I confess that I am not fully aware of the situation in Southwark, but I think the hon. Gentleman's comment backs up the point that I am making. We should have consistency in this clause, because if something goes wrong and there is an employment problem, an individual needs to have redress through the appropriate body. The guidance that is given to the LEA or the governing body as the employer should be consistent. That is what I am trying to achieve with this amendment.

Ivan Lewis: I am delighted to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Griffiths.
 In a sense, the hon. Gentleman answered the question himself. His amendment is not necessary, because for any pay and conditions order under clause 118, the employer must be either a local education authority or a governing body. If there were any confusion or doubt about whether the local education authority or the governing body had failed to follow guidance on some employment issue, it would be irrelevant who failed to fulfil those responsibilities. It could be of concern if someone had failed to fulfil responsibilities under employment law. What would be relevant in any employment tribunal or litigation would be who the employer of the individual was. 
 As I said, for any pay and conditions order under clause 118 the employer has to be the local education authority or the governing body. It does not refer to any other set of circumstances. On that basis, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Graham Brady: On a point of clarification, is it possible to employ teaching staff through a company formed by the governing body under chapter 3 powers? Would such employment be deemed to be by the governing body, or would it be a way of circumventing the application of the section?

Ivan Lewis: It would depend on the company's role, but the staff would be employees of the governing body, so what I said earlier would still apply. The employer must be the LEA or the governing body.

Phil Willis: I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), because he has again put his finger on the issue. If it is so clear that the employer will be either the local education authority or the governing body, why should it not be specified in the Bill? There should be absolutely no problem with that.
 The amendment would ensure that any sub-contracting goes through the governing body or the LEA. That is an important safeguard. I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but I hope that the Minister will review our exchange and consider whether it would be better to include the proposal in the Bill.

Graham Brady: I am intervening not because the hon. Gentleman spoke so kindly about my intervention, but because I have an inkling that, if he were to wait just a moment before withdrawing the amendment, he would get greater clarity from the Minister.

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman's wisdom is profound, but I think that the Minister has concluded his remarks.

Ivan Lewis: I will probably regret this. However, I will give a specific example that might clarify the matter. We had a debate this morning about teachers who provide cover and are employed by agencies. They are not covered by pay legislation or bound by national pay and conditions. Thus, the guidance under clause 123 is not relevant to them, and they are not bound by the order.
 The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough agreed to withdraw the amendment. This is not a question of belt and braces. It is straightforward: no other employer is covered by clause 118, other than the local education authority and the governing body. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Phil Willis: I think that the Minister may regret standing up at that point. In all seriousness and to be helpful, this provision of the Bill is deficient. It deals with the employment of people who work in our schools, but it does not take into account the different organisations that will result from earned autonomy and powers to innovate. We will leave ourselves open to a significant number of challenges in the courts, which are incredibly unhelpful in running our schools.
 I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but I hope that the Ministers and their officials will reflect on this provision to determine whether it covers the eventualities that they have provided for in the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 123 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 124 - Education action zone

Ivan Lewis: I beg to move amendment No. 343, in page 77, line 3, leave out 'employed to work'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 344, 345 and 346.

Ivan Lewis: These amendments are relatively straightforward, and are designed to achieve a particular objective. If a school in an education action zone opts out of national pay and conditions arrangements, all teachers employed by the governing body or the LEA will be covered by the new arrangements that are then set up. It is important to make that clear. It will include teachers employed under a contract for services, such as some supply teachers, as well as those employed under contracts of employment by the local education authority or the governing body. The objective of the original wording is no different, but these amendments remove any doubt. On that basis, I ask hon. Members to accept them.

Phil Willis: I seek some clarification from the Minister. If a school under either earned autonomy or the powers to innovate transfers to a company in the private sector, which we have established it can do, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employers) arrangements would then come into force. Would those arrangements bind the incoming organisation to maintain the pay and conditions of the transferred staff, and if so, for how long?
 Mr. Lewis: That might occur in an academy. In those circumstances the TUPE arrangements would apply. As for the length of time, I will need to take further advice and I will let the hon. Gentleman know.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 344, in page 77, line 6, leave out 'employed to work'. 
 No. 345, in page 77, line 11, leave out 'is employed to work' and insert 'works'. 
 No. 346, in page 77, line 14, leave out 'employed to work'.—[Mr. Ivan Lewis.] 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Turner: This gives me an opportunity to ask the Minister to clarify the position of schools in education action zones, which, as I understood from a recent press release, are to be incorporated into the excellence in cities scheme, and in particular the position of schools in rural education action zones where the word ''cities'' does not apply. Have I simply allowed myself to be deluded by statements in the popular press or are the Government withdrawing the education action zone scheme?

Stephen Timms: There have recently been incidents of hon. Members being deluded by what they read in the press, but I do not think that this is one of them. Education action zones were always going to have a finite life. They were originally set up for three years. They have all been extended for a further two years, so will run for five years. At the end of that period they will close. We have taken many of the successful features of initiatives in the action zones and built them into the excellence in cities programme, which will continue.
 The basis for the excellence in cities action zones is rather different. They will not be statutory zones like education action zones, but I expect them to adopt similar approaches. We will certainly learn lessons from what education action zones have successfully achieved. The hon. Gentleman also asked about rural areas. The excellence in cities programme provides for excellence clusters to target disadvantage in rural areas. They are, by definition, not in cities, so the programme can tackle rural disadvantage as well.

Andrew Turner: I thank the Minister for that helpful statement, but will he clarify the purpose of the clause? It seems to apply to something that is disappearing: perhaps it will cease to apply when it actually disappears. What will happen to the assets and liabilities of education action zones, which I understand are bodies corporate?

Stephen Timms: As I said, education action zones will continue until 2005, which is why the powers are needed until then. In that year they will become redundant and exit strategies for the zones will be drawn up to deal with assets and liabilities. The assets are likely to be mainly in schools, which will probably hang on to them, although some may be transferred to
 LEAs. A variety of arrangements will be made, but all zones will have exit strategies to ensure an orderly transition.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 124, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 125 and 126 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 12 agreed to.

Win Griffiths: Before we move on to the next group of amendments, I should like to announce that at our previous sitting a mistake was made on the order of the two groups of amendments to clause 129. When we reach that clause, the amendments grouped with amendment No. 502 will be called first.Clause 127 Appraisal

Clause 127 - Appraisal

Don Touhig: I beg to move amendment No. 347, in page 78, line 17, leave out
 'The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring'
 and insert 'Regulations may require'.

Win Griffiths: With this we may take the following Government amendments: Nos. 348 to 358, 360 to 362, 364 to 373, 375, 377 to 379, 381 to 387, 389 and clause 141 stand part.

Don Touhig: This apparently complex group of technical amendments make minor and technical changes to the powers of the National Assembly for Wales. I hope that hon. Members will have found helpful my document setting out how the Bill will look if the Government amendments are carried this afternoon.
 I am pleased to introduce these amendments because they greatly clarify the drafting with regard to the powers of the National Assembly for Wales and the Secretary of State. This part of the Bill adopts the approach of allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations. Clause 141 states that certain references to the Secretary of State should be taken to refer to the National Assembly of Wales. 
 On Second Reading, the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) argued that that approach to the drafting made it more difficult to understand the National Assembly's position. He said that the clause reminded him of the famous reference in ''Encyclopaedia Britannica''—''For Wales, see England''. He was right, and his approach to drafting prompted a rethink. I agree that the teacher provisions are more difficult to interpret in relation to Wales. The amendments are designed to make the drafting consistent with the remainder of the Bill. 
 This large group of amendments provides, where appropriate, that powers may be exercised by the Secretary of State in relation to England and by the National Assembly in relation to Wales. Clause 141 therefore becomes unnecessary. I hope that members 
 of the Committee will agree that consistency throughout the Bill is important, and that the amendments help to clarify the position. 
 These amendments make clause 141 redundant. The approach to powers of regulation when the Bill was first introduced was to provide in each clause that the Secretary of State should make regulations. As I said, clause 141 states that certain references to the Secretary of State should be taken as a reference to the National Assembly in respect of Wales. Similar provision is made with respect to the General Teaching Council for England and the Teacher Training Agency. That approach is different from the one taken in the rest of the Bill and has been confusing. The large group of amendments will overcome the problem and make clause 141 unnecessary. 
 Amendment agreed to.

Phil Willis: I beg to move amendment No. 516, in page 78, line 30, at the end insert
'otherwise than a function relating to remuneration.'

Win Griffiths: With this we may take amendment No. 517, in page 78, line 34, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
 (5) A report of relevant matters arising from the results of an appraisal may, with the consent of the teacher to whom the appraisal relates, be used in determining a teacher's remuneration.'.

Phil Willis: These are two important probing amendments, which I shall treat separately.
 I was a practising head teacher—well, I was a head teacher, what I practised is another matter--when the Education Act 1986 was passed. Section 49 of that Act dealt with appraisal. I know that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) was a member of a senior management team at that time—no, he was probably still at school then. Appraisal caused a great hullabaloo in the 1980s, and what transpired was a farce. 
 As a head teacher, I could choose my appraiser, who had to be a critical friend. A member of the local advisory staff came in, and I can recall that he was worried about his future. I virtually wrote my own appraisal, submitted it and—surprise, surprise—everyone agreed that I was doing a wonderful job. In reality I probably was not, though I am sure members of the Committee will find that impossible to visualise. I hope that this does not become another diary piece, but drawing from one's own experience is often the best way of illustrating an issue. 
 It is crucial for appraisal to lie at the heart of school improvement. Without quality appraisal it is impossible to move forward. The sad thing about the Government's introduction of performance management—particularly thresholds—was that it involved two different issues, which the amendment picks up on. One was appraisal; the other was performance-related pay. I believe that they are fundamentally different. 
 Many of the world's top blue chip companies have abandoned performance-related pay in favour of a total quality management methodology, which is about achieving constant incremental improvement in performance. None of the teaching unions and no one I have met—apart from some people on the extremes—fail to understand that constant appraisal aimed at securing small improvements must be at the heart of what we are trying to achieve. 
 In some of our most demanding schools—sadly, the Government call them failing schools—the challenges are massive, so small incremental steps are often massive. We sometimes do not recognise how difficult it is to get the ship to move at all. One of the worries I have about the Bill is that the Government appear to believe that performance-related pay can be used as a lever to drive up standards. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether that is true. If that is their belief, they will fail. 
 If the Government want hard appraisal, Ofsted and audit facilities are part and parcel of school culture. Mike Tomlinson deserves enormous praise for turning round the attitude of Ofsted, and I wish the new chief inspector well. Teachers recognise that they are accountable for what they do in the classroom, and that they cannot close the door, declare the classroom their kingdom and forbid anyone entrance. I want to build on that. 
 We are in danger of losing the best elements of appraisal by linking it with performance-related pay. In the Minister's Department, I suspect the best work goes on when people admit that they are not achieving something and systems can be put in place to support them. My greatest difficulty as a head was getting staff to tell me when they were not coping and needed help. Good appraisal is about allowing that to happen. The problem with linking it to performance-related pay is that people are less likely to admit to deficiencies. 
 Through the amendments, I want to probe the Minister on what will happen to the appraisal documents. Clearly, the head teacher or line manager should be part of the appraisal system. At the moment, a governor can ask to see the appraisal documentation for any teacher in the school. That is not acceptable, and I want to hear the Government's view on that. If there were a post in a school as head of the maths department and a teacher from the school applied, the governors could ask at the interview for the appraisal documentation, whereas the person from 3Es that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight recommended would not have to reveal that information. That is grossly unfair. The Government have to determine who has access to the documentation and for what purpose. 
 Amendment No. 517 goes further. It would insert the provision: 
 ''A report of relevant matters arising from the results of an appraisal may, with the consent of the teacher to whom the appraisal relates, be used in determining a teacher's remuneration.'' 
That would establish whether the appraisal document could be used as substantive evidence in determining whether a teacher should receive extra pay. One of my concerns about the clause is that teaching is not an individual activity. It depends enormously on the 
 corporate activities in the school. One cannot divorce what happens to a group of young people from the actions of other teachers and other young people. I hope that the Minister will give us some reassurance, and will let us know the Government's thinking on performance management and how far the Government intend to go with performance-related pay.

Chris Grayling: I listened with interest to the comments made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. Although I share many of his concerns about the somewhat clumsy way that the Government have introduced performance-related pay and some of the difficulties that have been created within schools, I do not think that these two amendments would enhance the legislation. In many ways, they would create complications for the workings of individual classrooms. I have to take issue with his comment about a number of major international organisations having moved away from performance-related pay. That may be true in individual cases, but it is certainly not the case that top commercial organisations have moved away from the principle of reward for excellent performance.
 I shall explain why I am concerned about the two amendments, and I will take them in reverse order. Amendment No. 517 creates an almost impossible situation for a head teacher, and I am sure that that was not intended. The amendment states: 
 ''A report of relevant matters arising from the results of an appraisal may, with the consent of the teacher to whom the appraisal relates, be used in determining a teacher's remuneration'' 
The literal meaning of the amendment would be that, had the hon. Gentleman, when he was a head teacher, carried out an appraisal on a teacher whom he decided was under-performing and should not be recommended for a salary advancement that year, that teacher's consent would have to be sought before that decision could be taken. 
 The amendment would create an impossible position for a head teacher who would have to take a decision for negative rather than positive performers. I appreciate that this would not be a problem in the reverse situation, where there was a proposal to enhance a teacher's salary, particularly for excellent performance. In instances where it might be necessary to say, ''You are not doing a good enough job, and I want to see more improvement before I am willing to see your salary rise.'' the this amendment would constrain the head teacher from taking that step. 
 Amendment No. 516 would insert the words: 
''otherwise than a function related to remuneration''. 
I can understand that in principle, but in reality, within a large school, there would inevitably be some delegation within the appraisal process. The delegation may go to the extremes that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough described, but to legislate against delegation—the ability of a departmental head to ask his deputy to carry out the appraisal for a new member of staff—would have a negative effect on the workings of the school. Although I understand and agree that, in a 
 good management environment, it might not be desirable to delegate an appraisal, there are occasions in every organisation—whether in education, the private sector or the public sector—when it is unavoidable. I would anxious legislating to prevent that.

Ivan Lewis: As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough has said, there is a legitimate debate about the link between performance-related pay and appraisals. However, I am not sure that his contribution to the debate was consistent with the outcome and effect of his amendments. I shall discuss the general issue.
 In my view, if we are to have a credible performance-related pay system that is transparent, and that people feel is fair—for those who do not accept that performance-related pay is a good thing, this is an entirely different debate—then surely there must be a reasonable and evidential base for decisions. In those circumstances, it would be ludicrous to divorce decisions about the level of pay linked to performance from a strategic, credible and school-wide approach to appraisal. Both processes must be carried out on a relatively consistent basis. 
 The hon. Gentleman referred to schools that have particular difficulties or are in difficult circumstances, and the performance of their teachers. We would all accept that, despite the fact that performance indicators such as exam results sometimes take time to improve in those schools, many of their teachers do an extremely good job daily. Some teachers will do a better job than others; that is the nature of any workplace. However, the hon. Gentleman implied that in those schools, it would not be recognised that teachers were offering a value-added service to their students and that there would not be the flexibility to recognise that through appraisal and, consequently, performance-related pay. 
 That does not accurately reflect what happens. There are particularly difficult circumstances in those schools and teachers work extremely hard to raise standards to the level that we would expect. Under the appraisal and performance-related pay system, there is the flexibility to recognise the contributions of individual teachers in those settings. 
 Performance-related pay is one legitimate lever to raise standards in our schools generally and in individual schools, although it is not the only or the predominant one. As I understand it, there is a considerable amount of flexibility and discretion for head teachers in making decisions about individual teachers' performances. I think that two particular objectives are set: one relates to pupil performance and the other relates to professional development and commitment to personal development and training. 
 The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough described his early experiences of performance management and said that it had been introduced in a cack-handed, amateur and 
 unfortunate way, but the education system and other public services have moved on. There is a far greater understanding by professional leadership about how to put in place sensitively and professionally a performance-management framework that works, is seen to be fair, and recognises individual teachers' contributions. 
 Amendment No. 517 refers to 
''the consent of the teacher''. 
The hon. Gentleman talked about a critical friend coming into the school, how everything was very cosy and that the appraisal said that he was doing a brilliant job. If the arrangements were voluntary, it is difficult to imagine that most teachers who had not received a particularly good appraisal—[Interruption.] We must accept that during an appraisal, there are often significant differences of opinion. We all know that that applies to occasions on which head teachers or anyone in a leadership position has to make judgments about someone. At the end of the process, the individual concerned does not always entirely agree with the conclusion. However, as the hon. Gentleman often reminds us, we must respect the professionalism of teachers and head teachers. Head teachers are paid to be managers and leaders, which partly involves undertaking appraisals, putting in place a proper performance-management system and doing a variety of things that ultimately contribute towards raising standards in the school. Therefore, the two amendments cannot be accepted. 
 I do not see how we can run performance-related and appraisal systems without linking the two. It would undermine their credibility. The appraisal process is in some ways the only formal, strategic way in which a head teacher can use evidence, rather than a whim or other criteria, to make judgements about individuals. Having to go through the appraisal process requires certain disciplines, including objectivity, transparency and an understanding of how one will be judged and the process that will be used, so there is every justification and logic for linking it to performance-related pay. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Phil Willis: I am enormously saddened at the Minister's reply. I said that the amendments were probing, and I hope that he will reflect on his comments. He made the powerful statement that pay in schools in England and Wales will in future be subjected to a performance-related regime. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) mentioned other private sector organisations. I stand to be corrected on this, but almost every private sector organisation that continues to have performance-related pay has an identifiable product on which to judge the performance of its employees. It can be profits or the number of units, widgets or whatever, but that is the case.
 The other criterion for performance-related pay is having no glass ceiling for what people can earn. As soon as a limiting factor for performance bonuses is introduced, the whole scheme is undermined, which has been a problem in the past. As a head teacher, I had performance points to give out—they were introduced 
 by the previous Government—but I had only two for the whole school. It was impossible to decide which two teachers should get those points. 
 We are talking not about appraisal, but performance-related pay. That is at the heart of the Government's vision for the modern teaching profession. Before I sit down, will the Minister guarantee that every school will have the resources to reward the teachers who go through the various hoops? I know that the Minister cannot promise that, because he knows that the Chancellor would not allow him to do so, and neither would it be reasonable for any Minister to ask the Chancellor for a blank cheque. 
 The Minister said that each school would produce its own arrangements. I accept that; the appraisal arrangements must be tailored to particular schools. However, it will mean that they will be vastly different unless regulations or guidelines on performance-related pay are introduced under subsections (5) and (6). If that happens, our schools will continue down the road on which this Government have been moving since 1997. The Government have done many decent things, but I would criticise them most for their mantra of valuing only what can be measured, rather than measuring what can be valued. That is a problem. Will such arrangements be introduced for the Department? Will all the civil servants be on performance-related pay? I suggest that the answer is no—the system only applies to teachers.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman has made some important points. The current performance-related pay regime has created complexity for head teachers. He made the point about the financial arrangements, and the Government have not provided adequate long-term security for schools. Several head teachers in my constituency have expressed concerns about promising performance-related pay as they are uncertain whether they will be able to afford it in two or three years' time.

Phil Willis: I thank the hon. Gentleman, because I was moving on to that point.

Ivan Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: I will just finish my point.
 I was going to ask the Minister whether the arrangements apply only to the management spine. There is a clear understanding that once a teacher goes through the threshold, he or she is then on a management pay spine with clear arrangements. Picking up the issue from the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, we have had no commitment from the Government that, as a result of the schemes that are to be introduced, the funding of the pay spine above the threshold will be met in full. The Minister may say today that it will, but will performance-related pay be introduced for the main profession spine? Will teachers be unable to move up to the next point on the spine unless they meet the performance-related criteria? If that is the case, the Minister's comments today will be of tremendous interest to every teacher in England and Wales, because it will fundamentally 
 change their relationship with their schools. I am happy to give way to the Minister so that he can deal with this.

Ivan Lewis: I will do so in a moment.

James Purnell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that even special advisers are on performance-related pay within the civil service? Unfortunately, some of us had bosses who did not rate our performance highly enough to give us those bonuses, but they were available. Also, they did not undermine our sense of performance within our teams.

Phil Willis: That is a most interesting intervention. The hon. Gentleman failed to perform as a special adviser so they gave him a job as an MP, which is remarkable. That is how the Labour party selects its candidates. We know that Lord Woodhead of Smith Square will probably be joining us in another place; perhaps he will now become a Member of Parliament.
 I have made the points that I wanted to make. This is a serious issue, and I would understand if the Minister wanted to reply in writing to some of the points, because the teachers' associations will listen carefully to today's exchanges and draw their own conclusions.

Ivan Lewis: First, there is a direct link between appraisal and performance-related pay for all civil servants in the Department, and there has been for 20 years, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will be delighted to hear.
 As the hon. Gentleman stated, the provision will apply to all teachers, not just the management spine. It is also clear that before the introduction of any regulations that changed the situation, there would have to be full consultation with all interested parties, including the teaching unions. It is disingenuous to present this as a sweeping or massive change in Government policy. The hon. Gentleman normally demonstrates integrity, but he wavers sometimes. He produces amendments that are nothing to do with the changes that he alleges the Government are planning for the teaching profession. 
 The amendments would separate performance-related pay and appraisal. The hon. Gentleman began his contribution by saying that he agreed with the principle of appraisal. He was absolutely clear about that. However, these amendments seek to remove the evidential base in making decisions about performance-related pay. I have not heard the hon. Gentleman say it during this debate—I may have missed it— but I do not think that he believes in performance-related pay. If he does not believe in performance-related pay for teachers or in any other setting, it would be more honest for him to say, ''I do not believe in performance-related pay, but I do believe in appraisal.'' That is really the core of the hon. Gentleman's contribution. 
 We believe that performance-related pay has a role to play in improving services. It is one lever that contributes towards supporting good teachers in an effort to raise standards in our schools. 
 This is nothing to do with the general points that the hon. Gentleman made in his contribution. Although I think that his points were legitimate, the amendments are designed purely to separate appraisal and performance-related pay. Other than in circumstances where a teacher consents to an appraisal being used, the two would be separate. That is completely illogical and would significantly undermine the whole purpose of the appraisal process. 
 There is a significant amount of discretion available to head teachers in terms of the judgments that they make about the performance of other teachers, and that is appropriate. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right when he said that there is a variety of ways in which an individual contributes to a school. That contribution involves being a team player, being a supportive member of staff and involves the impact they will have on their colleagues. The hon. Gentleman should be clearer about whether his party believes in the principle of performance-related pay and appraisal. 
 While there are some organisations that separate the two —I would not pretend that this is a unique or novel suggestion, as there are some organisations that make that judgment —we have a responsibility to ensure that the decisions made on performance are significantly based on evidence, and are in accordance with a framework that is clear about the standards that the process needs to have attached to it. 
 The hon. Gentleman referred to the very early days of performance-related pay and appraisal, and said what a joke it was. We are seeking to put in place a professional framework that is transparent and fair, and that considers hard evidence about a teacher's performance when it is linked to any decisions about pay. On that basis, I again ask the hon. Gentleman to remove his amendment.

Phil Willis: This has been an interesting debate, and I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman feels that I have been disingenuous, as that is genuinely not my style. I have tried to raise the issues. I said at the outset that these were probing amendments. I have listened to the Minister's comments and there is merit in some of his arguments.
 It is interesting that two things have come out of this debate. First, we are now to have performance-related pay from the moment a person enters the teaching profession. That is what the Minister has said. This is a fundamental shift from anything that any Minister has said in the past. I thank the Minister for his honesty. 
 Secondly, we have had no guarantee that the commensurate resources will be provided so that schools can meet the scheme. Without that, performance-related pay is a joke. We cannot have one without the other.

Chris Grayling: Not only that, we do not have any guarantee that the Government will continue to fund the current scheme. All that I have been able to extract
 from the Government in a series of questions is that they are aware that it will have long-term cost implications and that they are looking into it.

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman is right. I am sorry that I did not address that issue specifically. If he looks at Hansard from the last Parliament he will see that I asked the then Secretary of State a series of questions about the funding of the threshold. It was guaranteed for two years. After that we do not know. It will probably be in the standard spending assessment or the new arrangements. The hon. Member is absolutely right.
 The Minister is wrong to say that one cannot have appraisal and separate arrangements for pay. Many organisations do. The horror scenario, if this is now Government policy, is that surgeons in my local hospital will be assessed for performance-related pay on the number of operations that they carry out or the number or deaths that occur on the operating table. We are talking about a profession, not about people who make a number of widgets every day. This is a professional activity that depends on a number of people. If the Minister had said that professional development should be at the heart of Government policy and that it should include professional competence and reward for that—that happens in a host of organisations—I could be with him. I cannot, however, support the narrow definition with another set of tick boxes. We will return to this. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 348, in page 78, line 38, after 'authorities', insert 'in England'. 
 No. 349, in page 78, line 39, after 'authorities', insert 'in England'. 
 No. 350, in page 78, line 40, after second 'bodies', insert 'in England'. 
 No. 351, in page 78, line 41, after 'teachers', insert 'in England'. 
 No. 352, in page 78, line 42, at end insert— 
 '( ) Before making regulations under this section the National Assembly for Wales shall consult such of the following as appear to it to be appropriate— 
 (a) associations of local education authorities in Wales, 
 (b) local education authorities in Wales, 
 (c) bodies representing the interests of governing bodies in Wales, 
 (d) bodies representing the interests of teachers in Wales, and 
 (e) the National Council for Education and Training for Wales.'.
 No. 353, in page 79, line 7, leave out subsection (8).—[Mr. Touhig.] 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Ashok Kumar: I shall try to be brief. We have had a long debate but I should like to tease out a couple of points on appraisal. The Minister mentioned professional and personal development. The Royal Society of Chemistry has told me that it is concerned about the time that will be allocated for teachers to
 prepare for their professional and personal development. We need some assurances that support will be available, especially in science. Science is a rapidly changing subject. Science teachers need a lot of support and help and they need assurances from the Minister that that will not be overlooked and that there will be sufficient Government investment.

Don Touhig: I am content to give my hon. Friend the assurances that he seeks. The Government firmly believe that continuing professional development is key to achieving higher levels of performance for teachers. CPD is crucial to developing the calibre of our teaching force as well as being a driving force for improving the whole school. I can give the Committee a number of examples where the Government have been proactive. The best practice research scholarships provide teachers with an opportunity to use grants of up to £2,500 to do sharply focused research into key areas of teaching and learning in the classroom; more than 1,000 teachers benefited from them last year. Our pilot scheme for professional bursaries offers teachers financial support for professional development of £500 in nine LEAs and £700 for the associated excellence in cities initiative. During the next two years, £30 million will be spent on extending the scheme.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) raised concerns about science teachers. I agree that the professional development and training of science teachers is important. They benefit from all the initiatives to which I just referred, and there are sabbaticals, bursaries and scholarships aimed at improving continuing professional development of teachers generally. We shall pay particular attention to science teachers as part of the key stage 3 strategy, which is designed to raise standards at secondary school level. We are confident that our strategies will address my hon. Friend's points, and we wish to underpin and underline our commitment to the importance of science education.

Phil Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East for raising an important point about professional development. As part of its settlement, the Scottish Parliament gave every teacher in Scotland a statutory right to professional development. In this country, we have a series of pilots. I accept and support them; they are advantageous. However, until we have a system in which we put professional development for every member of staff at the heart of the improvement process, we will not make progress.

Win Griffiths: Order. I recall that this was supposed to be an intervention.

Don Touhig: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments. We introduced sabbatical schemes in September 2001 to provide opportunities to enhance teacher development and to deliver significant benefits
 to schoolteachers. We are conscious that professional development must be tailored effectively and have introduced strategies to achieve that.
 Clause 127 deals with appraisals. We are proud of our record on teacher professional development. The Government have put a lot into it by way of resources and commitment, but we wish to raise the expectations of heads and teachers for training and professional development even higher than we have. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Ivan Lewis: I do not want the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough to get too excited at this point but, in the light of some of the implications in his contribution, it is important to put on the record that the Government are not changing any arrangements in relation to the main pay scale.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 127, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 128 - Qualified teacher status

Amendments made: No. 354, in page 79, line 18, leave out— 
''made by the Secretary of State''. 
No. 355, in page 79, line 23, after ''State'', insert— 
'', the National Assembly for Wales''.
 No. 356, in page 79, line 24, at end insert— 
 ( ) )The Secretary of State shall consult the General Teaching Council for England before making regulations under this section which make provision by reference to— 
 (a) the content of a course, or 
 (b) the standard of education provided through a course. 
 ( ) The National Assembly for Wales shall consult the General Teaching Council for Wales before making regulations under this section which make provision by reference to— 
 (a) the content of a course, or 
 (b) the standard of education provided through a course.''.—[Mr. Touhig.]
 Clause 128, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 129 - Requirement to be qualified

Amendment made: No. 357, in page 79, line 26, leave out ''The Secretary of State may by regulations'' and insert ''Regulations may''.—[Mr. Timms.]

Phil Willis: I beg to move amendment No. 502, in page 79, leave out lines 28 to 38.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 535, in page 79, line 28, at beginning insert—
 ''After consultation with the General Teaching Council.''.
 No. 498, in page 79, line 38, at end add— 
 ''(b)In this section ''specified work'' means such work as may be specified in regulations made under this section being work of such nature that it cannot reasonably be performed otherwise than by a person who has satisfied the requirements specified in regulations made under section 128.''.
 Mr. Willis: This is a probing amendment in which we are trying to ascertain the Government's thinking about staff who are not qualified teachers. The Secretary of State and various Governments have confined their control of the teaching profession to that profession and its members. With this clause, the Secretary of State is seeking to extend her powers to support staff in schools. On several occasions, most recently in her north of England speech in Huddersfield on 4 January, she said that a range of adults, rather than just professional teachers, would perform in the classroom of the future with different degrees of professional competence. The Liberal Democrats support the idea of extra staff, who are not professional teachers and are not registered with the GTC, working in classrooms, laboratories and other parts of the school. Those colleagues provide schools with an enormously valuable resource and we place on record that we support the Government's plans to increase their numbers. The Liberal Democrats also made a pledge in the 2001 election that every primary school would have an additional support member of staff in each classroom as a minimum requirement. It is nice to see that, as ever, the Government are picking up Liberal Democrat policy and putting it into practice, as they find it difficult to think of practical solutions to many of the difficulties.
 In lines 28 to 38 of the clause, the Secretary of State is saying, in effect, that the Government want all these new people but want to ensure that they do what the Government tell them. The clause gives the Secretary of State additional powers to set out in regulations what work can be carried out by support staff. I may have misunderstood—I sometimes do—and The Minister will tell me if that is the case. 
 Most head teachers, especially of small primary schools, negotiate with their support staff, as support staff often perform several functions. We are not just talking about the special educational needs support teacher or the classroom assistant. Support staff often perform a host of boxed and coxed roles to support the work of the school. I would hate to see a situation in which the Secretary of State prescribes the job description of everyone who works in a school. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the Committee that that is not the intention and that we will not go down that road.

Graham Brady: Amendment No. 535 suggests that the General Teaching Council may be an appropriate body to consult when the regulations are drafted under this section. I do not intend to speak at length, but I invite the Minister's comments on where he sees the GTC's role in that regard.
 Amendment No. 498 is more substantive, and also deals with some of the points that were raised by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. The amendment suggests that the term ''specified work'' should be defined as 
''such work as may be specified in regulations made under this section being work of such nature that it cannot reasonably be performed otherwise than by a person who has satisfied the requirements specified in regulations made under section 128.'' 
 The purpose again is to seek clarification from the Minister of how it is intended that those powers should be used. What work will be specified as being appropriate only to qualified teachers? Where will the line be drawn between qualified teachers and others who may perform an extremely valuable role in the classroom? The Liberal Democrat spokesman made that point. 
In response to my invitation, the Minister undertook to make more detail available to us at this point, and we look forward to that. I hope that, in doing so, he will further clarify the provisional registration of teachers and particularly its application for these purposes to overseas-trained teachers. Many such teachers do excellent work in our classrooms, but it is important to know the Government's intention. Do they intend to register all overseas-trained teachers or only those who seek qualified teacher status? We have in mind the fact that last year the Department for Education and Skills removed the four-month maximum time that overseas-trained teachers could spend in one post and increased to four years the maximum time that they could spend as temporary teachers. 
Existing teacher regulations specify arrangements for employment of qualified and unqualified teachers. These provisions give the Secretary of State additional powers to make regulations to set out work that should be carried out by support staff. I understand that those powers are in areas that are a matter for local determination under the National Joint Council for Local Government Services. Again, we need to know what the Secretary of State intends to do with the new powers and how that would differ from the existing situation. I do not intend to dwell on these points, but the Minister undertook to give us more detail and we look forward to it with interest.

Stephen Timms: The clause ensures that work in schools to deliver education is carried out by a range of staff with appropriate skills and qualifications. I particularly welcomed the support expressed by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for recent announcements in that respect by my right hon. Friend. We want to introduce greater flexibility for schools, but it is also important that basic requirements on teacher professionalism and supervision be maintained in the work carried out in schools. Providing for those requirements in regulations will be an important safeguard for schools, teachers and parents, and will ensure that appropriate standards are upheld.
 The note that we circulated to all Committee members gives more information about how that will work. It says: 
 ''Clause 129(1) enables the Secretary of State to provide by regulations that specified work may be carried out in a school only by a qualified teacher. The Secretary of State intends, subject to consultation, that the specified work should entail: Overall responsibility for monitoring and assessing the progress of a pupil or group of pupils in a curriculum subject'' 
 ''Carrying out any of the statutory professional duties of a teacher, as required.'' 
 The Bill provides for qualified teachers to have the right qualification and to be paid as qualified teachers, and for schools to employ teachers and non-teaching staff. We shall consult widely representatives of all interested parties on the content of regulations. We will be careful to avoid placing difficult burdens on schools and their managers in meeting staffing needs. 
 Amendment No. 502 would remove a major purpose of the clause, which is to provide the scope to set the circumstances in which non-teaching staff may support teachers in their work. The whole Committee would recognise the need for greater clarity in that regard. A transformation has taken place in classrooms over the past 10 years in that there are many more support staff. I think that there are almost 100,000 teaching assistants—many more than when the arrangements were put in place—so clarity is needed, and the clause provides that. 
 Removing the provision would remove our opportunity to provide clarification. If it were removed, no doubt some braver schools would press forward with arrangements for the organisation of work that best suited their needs. They would have some doubts about the legality of what they were doing and perhaps some anxiety that they would be challenged, but while some would carry on, others certainly would not. They would simply build a hard demarcation between teachers' work and the work done by others. That neither makes sense nor is the best way forward for any school, and that is why it is important that we leave in subsection (2), which enables the Secretary of State to make regulations that make clear what is the specified work that may be carried out in a school by someone who is not a qualified teacher.

Phil Willis: The Minister is being helpful, so would he also add more clarity to the issue of paying these people? Do the Government envisage national pay scales that would reflect those responsibilities?

Stephen Timms: No, we do not. The arrangements, as the hon. Member knows, are locally negotiated and I would envisage those arrangements continuing. There will be, under what we are envisaging and under the announcements made by my right hon. Friend, an evolution of the work of classroom assistants and that will certainly be a factor in future negotiations, but we do not envisage a national arrangement such as that.
 As hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West said, amendment No. 498 is along similar lines. It would limit the scope of non-teaching staff to support teachers. It would turn the purpose of the clause on its head if regulations simply identified the work that only a qualified teacher could do without exception or satisfying any particular conditions. We would then be drawn into a strict demarcation of functions that would be frustrating for the innovation that we want and would restrict the best deployment of skills and experience in schools. By contrast, what we want to do in clause 129 (1) and (2) is to create flexibility for schools, protection for parents and children as to the qualifications of their teachers and protection for teachers in defining their key professional role. 
 Amendment No. 535 singles out the GTC as a body that needs to be consulted before regulations are made under clause 129 (2). I put it to the hon. Member that the Secretary of State would be open to challenge if she did not consult fully and appropriately on the draft secondary legislation. I can give the Committee the assurance that the GTC will be included. There would, of course, be a wide range of bodies that we would also consider appropriate consultees, and it would be not be appropriate either to specify one of them or to attempt to specify all of them on the face of the Bill. By contrast it does make sense that the decision is for the Secretary of State, given the clear obligations on her in making that decision about who is consulted. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked me about the arrangements for registration. This clause does not have any impact on that. There are some amendments when we come to schedule 13—I seem to keep referring him to future parts of our debate—but there is some detail in that schedule and the clause dealing specifically with the General Teaching Council is clause 144. To answer specifically, however, this clause does not change any of those arrangements.

Phil Willis: We have had an interesting response. I am happy with the Minister's comments, but I think we will end up with some of problems that have existed over trying to amalgamate different blue-collar pay and conditions arrangements into the single status agreements. Appallingly, under the North Yorkshire Conservative council, many people working in schools have had to work extra hours to receive the same amount of pay. We should return on another occasion to consider the pay of those people.
 In 2000, at the Bridlington north of England conference, I made a point about growing professionals in our communities. The policy is in line with that idea. I applaud the Government on that, but the policy must be flexible so that it does not become a straitjacket for schools or individuals. Often, many of our school assistants have few qualifications and little experience, but they become incredibly valuable assets. We must encourage those people with open arms. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 358, in page 79, line 28, leave out 
 ''The Secretary of State may by regulations'' 
and insert ''Regulations may''.—[Mr. Timms.]

Stephen Timms: I beg to move amendment No. 359, in page 79, line 38, leave out
''does not include an independent school''
 and insert 
''means— 
 (a) a school maintained by a local education authority, or 
 (b) a special school not so maintained.''

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 363, 366 and 376.
 Mr. Timms: Amendment No. 359 ensures that only LEA-maintained and non-maintained special schools are covered by the regulations that may be made under clause 129. That is a technical change. The other amendments are more technical still. I commend them to the Committee.

Graham Brady: The Minister said that amendment No. 359 is technical. It deletes from the original text the phrase
''does not include an independent school'' 
and defines ''a school'' as meaning a school maintained by an LEA or a special school. May I push the Minister a little further on the difference between the two wordings?

Stephen Timms: I am happy to provide that clarification. Perhaps I should have explained it a little more fully. It was always our intention that only LEA-maintained and non-maintained special schools should be covered by the regulations. The definition of ''independent school'' given in section 463 of the Education Act 1996, which will be amended slightly by clause 168, does not include, for example, private nursery schools with pupils below compulsory school age. Independent schools will also not be covered by the regulations made under the clause. Excluding independent schools from the clause would not be sufficient.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 129, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 130 - Requirement to be registered

Amendments made: No. 360, in page 80, line 2, leave out 
 'The Secretary of State may by regulations' 
and insert 'Regulations may'. 
 No. 361, in page 80, line 6, leave out 
 'The Secretary of State may by regulations' 
and insert 'Regulations may'. 
 No. 362, in page 80, line 9, leave out 
 'The Secretary of State may by regulations' 
and insert 'Regulations may'. 
 No. 363, in page 80, line 16, leave out 
'does not include an independent school' 
and insert 
'means— 
 (a) a school maintained by a local education authority, or 
 (b) a special school not so maintained.'.—[Mr. Timms.] 
 Clause 130, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 131 - Head teachers

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 540, in page 80, line 18, leave out subsection (1).
 The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 541, in page 80, line 20, leave out subsection (2).

Graham Brady: The amendments deal with the situation of head teachers and the Secretary of State's powers to make provision by regulation that a person may serve as a head teacher only if he is a qualified teacher or has a specified qualification. The amendments are probing. The purpose of amendment No. 540 is to establish whether the Government intend to apply the requirement in all circumstances, and amendment No. 541 is designed to probe the Minister for further information about what specified qualifications are anticipated.
 It would be wrong of me to suggest that, had there been a requirement for all head teachers to be qualified teachers, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough may not have had to make his earlier shamefaced confession that he was not quite as good as he should have been. I am sure that that was not true and that he did an excellent job. 
 We want to draw out the Minister's thinking on the application of regulations and what they may contain.

Stephen Timms: Requiring head teachers to be qualified teachers is a logical extension of the thinking that we have explored in Committee and our commitment to raising standards in schools by ensuring that those who lead our schools have the skills and professional knowledge to do so successfully. At the moment, legislation indirectly requires head teachers to be qualified, but we want to make that more explicit.
 It has been our objective for some time to make the national professional qualification for head teachers mandatory for all new head teachers, and clause 131 gives us the power to put that into effect. That will probably be widely welcomed in the Committee. We all know that the leadership, management ability and vision of the head are crucial factors in the overall effectiveness of a school. The new strengthened national professional qualification for head teachers has been widely welcomed by the profession. It has achieved a step change in recruitment. More than 10,000 people have applied since 1997, and almost 5,000 now hold the qualification. When recruiting for a head teacher, governing bodies can be assured that candidates who hold it will have had a thorough preparation for headship. 
 The requirement to hold the qualification will apply only to those seeking their first headship post. It will not apply to existing head teachers. I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman some helpful, further information.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to the Minister, and with those assurances and that further information, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 364, in page 80, line 18, leave out 
 'The Secretary of State may by regulations' 
and insert 'Regulations may'. 
 No. 365, in page 80, line 20, leave out 
 'The Secretary of State may by regulations' 
and insert 'Regulations may'. 
 No. 366, in page 80, line 30, leave out 
'does not include an independent school' 
and insert 
'means— 
 (a) a school maintained by a local education authority, or 
 (b) a special school not so maintained.'.—[Mr. Timms.] 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Turner: The point that I am about to make will not surprise hon. Members. The clause appears to be a further extension of the control mechanism that the Government want to impose on many aspects of education. The Bill is meant to be deregulatory, but the Government have reverted to type and the controls that they want to impose on schools pop up in unexpected places.
 Why have the Government so little confidence in all the other mechanisms that they have in place? They have mechanisms to deal with failing schools, improve the quality of governing bodies and encourage training of heads and other teachers. However, they do not have the confidence in the devolved arrangements, which they introduced, to enable the people who are responsible for implementing the arrangements to take appropriate action in choosing someone admittedly as important as a head teacher. 
 We can always envisage circumstances in which it may be appropriate for a school to consider a candidate who is not so qualified. I can give two examples, one of which admittedly does not refer to a maintained school. In the immediate post-war years, the governing body of the school at which I was educated chose not to appoint a qualified head teacher, or indeed a qualified teacher, as headmaster because there were important requirements for reorganising the school and getting it back on to a sound economic footing. Other governing bodies in other parts of the country, even in the maintained sector, have done the same, and the name of Queenswood school in Hertfordshire rings a bell. Other maintained schools have recently chosen not to appoint qualified teachers to the position of head for excellent reasons. 
 I have one other point, for which I should perhaps have intervened on the Minister earlier. I think that he said the regulations will apply only to those applying for their first headship, but I suspect that he meant those applying for their first or subsequent headship. Is he saying that someone who already has a headship will not be required to gain the qualification, even when he is applying for a further headship? 
Mr. Timms indicated assent.

Andrew Turner: In that case, I thank the Minister.
 I revert to my main point of concern about the clause. Like some subsequent clauses, it erects too high a hurdle in the way of governors who are appointing head teachers. It unnecessarily constrains their freedom of action, and shows that the Government do not trust the people they are setting in place. The 
 terrible thing is that however many qualifications someone may have, he or she can turn out to be absolutely useless. I will not go into my own qualifications, but one could turn out to be useless at the job for which one has qualifications. They are not a guarantee of competence, and their absence is in no way an indication of incompetence. We have many procedures in place for dealing with those who turn out to be incompetent.

Stephen Timms: We are determined to raise standards in our schools, and insisting on qualifications is part of that. One can always think of exceptions, but there is no doubt that the experience and training that will be required in order to obtain the headship qualification are valuable development processes that indicate that candidates have acquired skills and undergone training that will help to equip them for the task. Making that requirement compulsory will mean that schools will be choosing from a field of qualified rather than unqualified teachers.
 I do not think that that is unreasonable. If one were appointing a commissioner of Metropolitan police, one would expect that person to have been a policeman. I do not think that is an unreasonable requirement. It may limit the field, but given the importance of the role of head teachers, and the impact it has on so many children, I think that expecting head teachers to be qualified teachers is a good step.

Phil Willis: Is putting Mr. Birt in charge of the railways another example of that?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the context. We will consult on the regulations. An experienced teacher in further education may not have QTS, but may be an appropriate person to be appointed as a head teacher. Regulations will be produced, and we will consult on the matter.
 I hope that members from both sides of the Committee will recognise that these are good steps to take. I would emphasis in particular the enthusiasm that I have come across for the national professional qualification for head teachers, which I think is a very big step forward. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 131, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 132 - provision of education

Amendment made: No. 367, in page 80, line 33, leave out 
 'The Secretary of State may by regulations' 
and insert 'Regulations may'.--[Mr. Timms.]

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 542, in page 80, line 39, at end add
'although nothing in the above shall prevent a person who may otherwise be prohibited from providing education under the supervision of a person who is not prohibited.'.
 Amendment No. 542 explores the circumstances in which Ministers may deem it appropriate not to prohibit people who come into the various categories under clause 132. It particularly raises the possibility that a person who is prohibited because they have not yet completed a probationary period or because they have not yet attained the specified qualification may none the less be permitted to teach--to exercise an educational function-if supervised by someone who has attained that qualification or that status. 
 This is a probing amendment to get from the Minister a little information as to whether it is in the Government's thinking that prohibition may not always be rigid under those circumstances.

Ivan Lewis: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks. The current regulations already allow for and encourage unqualified staff to enter teaching through FE. They allow a new entrant between two and four years to gain a recognised qualification. Teachers employed in FE on 31 August 2001 are not required to gain a qualification. New people are being given time to obtain the relevant qualification, and people who have been teaching in FE without qualifications are not required to gain those qualifications if they were in post on 31 August 2001.
 The existing regulations, which we imagine will continue, already exempt temporary or occasional visiting lecturers who are practitioners and who offer colleges updates on industrial, commercial or professional practices. The regulations do not and will not in the future apply to support staff. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, we should encourage support staff to obtain qualifications, but they are not required have any. 
 I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that, although we have a commitment and determination to drive up standards and have a far higher proportion of qualified FE staff, his concern about rigidity is not well founded.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 132, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 133 - Principals of further education institutions

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 543, in page 81, line 2, leave out subsection (1).

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 544, in page 81, line 17, at end add—
 ''(5) Notwithstanding the foregoing a person may serve as principal of a further education institution if—
(a) another member of the staff of the institution has a specified qualification; or
 (b) the corporation of the institution has agreed to his appointment for a special purpose which in its opinion renders the qualification otiose.''.

Graham Brady: The amendments would allow a principal to serve who perhaps does not have the required qualifications, on condition that there is a qualified person on the staff who could act as a deputy or surrogate in some circumstances. Again, it is a question of whether flexibility exists within the proposed regulations.

Andrew Turner: I should like to add to my hon. Friend's comments, because the absence of amendment No. 544 would represent a failure of nerve on the Government's part over the institutions and processes that they have set in place, such as the Learning and Skills Council and the inspections of further education colleges. We now have particularly well-qualified people serving on the corporations of further education institutions, and I wonder why the Government so lacks confidence in them.
 The problems facing an institution may not require a person with the range of qualifications that the Secretary of State has specified: it is more likely that a limited number of such qualifications will be sufficient. It seems sensible to allow the corporation of the institution to take a decision in a special case.

Ivan Lewis: In a sense, we are recycling our earlier debate. It is a legitimate debate. We encourage and support the concept of leaders of FE colleges, which are massively important and historically undervalued institutions, and qualifications are an important part of developing the qualities and standards that we seek to achieve.
 On amendment No. 544, I find it a curious concept that one could employ a principal who did not have the relevant professional qualifications because someone else on the staff did. That would put the principal in an invidious position, because it would become public knowledge that the only reason he or she had been able to take up the post as leader of the institution was because someone more junior in the organisation had the relevant qualifications. That would present serious complications to do with authority and credibility, and with the management of the institution. It would be a most curious arrangement. It would be known that the person has been appointed as leader only because the assistant manager had the qualifications. 
 The amendment could seriously undermine sensible management arrangements and the capacity to deliver leadership at an institution. It might also lead the staff to question who exactly was in charge. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Graham Brady: The Minister has misunderstood the thrust of the amendment. Certainly it is important to take account of the fact that different aspects of the various roles undertaken by the principal of a further education institution may be prized differently. Some may relate to leadership while others may relate to educational qualifications or some other management experience. It has been a useful exchange. I would not want the Minister to think that in all circumstances the
 lack of a particular qualification may undermine the leadership position or the management role of a person in that position. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 368, in page 81, line 2, leave out 
 'The Secretary of State may by regulations'
 and insert 'Regulations may'.—[Mr. Timms.] 
 Clause 133, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 134 - Training in provision of further education

Amendments made: No. 369 page 81, line 22, after 'institution', insert 'in England'. 
 No. 370, in page 81, line 27, after 'institution', insert 'in England'. 
 No. 371, in page 81, line 30, after 'institution', insert 'in England'. 
 No. 372, in page 81, line 30, at end insert— 
 '( ) The National Assembly for Wales may by regulations— 
 (a) prohibit the provision by a further or higher education institution in Wales of a course to which this section applies without the approval of the National Assembly; 
 (b) enable the National Assembly to determine the number of persons who may undertake a specified course to which this section applies at a further or higher education institution in Wales; 
 (c) enable the National Assembly to determine the number of persons in different categories who may undertake a specified course to which this section applies at a further or higher education institution in Wales.'.—[Mr. Touhig].
 Clause 134, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 135 - Wales: provision in higher education

Amendment made: No. 373, in page 81, line 42, after 'institution', insert 'in Wales'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Don Touhig: I beg to move amendment No. 374, in page 81, leave out line 44.
 As no institutions maintained by local authorities in Wales offer higher education courses, the amendment removes an unnecessary provision and I commend it to the Committee.

Phil Willis: What will happen if local authorities want to offer such course in the future?

Don Touhig: I suggest that we cross that bridge when we come to it.

Phil Willis: With respect, that will not be possible, as the bridge will have been burnt.
 Mr. Touhig: I can only say that there are no institutions that offer these courses at the present time. The clause includes powers on these matters that were given to the Assembly. This is an unnecessary provision at present.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 135, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 136 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 137 - Health and fitness

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move amendment No. 530, in page 82, line 22, leave out
 'The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that'.

Win Griffiths: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 531, in page 82, line 23, leave out 'specified conditions' and insert
'the responsible body of an educational institution.'.
 No. 532, in page 82, line 25, leave out subsections (2), (3) and (4) and insert— 
 '(2) In this section— 
 (a) ''an activity'' means an activity which requires physical skills or attributes not generally possessed by teachers; 
 (b) ''the responsible body of an educational institution'' means the governing body of a school, the corporation of a further education institution, or the principal of a nursery school, pupil referral unit, or other education provides.'.
 No. 518, in page 82, line 32, leave out paragraph (b). 
 No. 519, in page 82, line 37, at end insert 
'for a local education authority or a governing body of a school or a further education institution.'
 No. 520, in page 82, line 39, leave out paragraph (b).

Eleanor Laing: These are tidying up amendments. The clause goes on at length about regulations concerning health and fitness. Amendment No. 530 would make subsection (1) read simply:
 ''An activity to which this section applies . . .'', 
It would delete the preamble that the 
 ''Secretary of State may by regulations provide'' 
The Secretary of State is being given more and more powers to vary matters after the Bill has become an Act. Surely it is better for the Bill to be definite and substantial now, without the need to make regulations in future. Similarly, amendment No. 531 tidies up the relevant part of the clause. 
 Amendment No. 532 would make it clear that the activity referred to is 
''an activity which requires physical skills or attributes not generally possessed by teachers''. 
That is what the Bill means, but it is difficult to work that out from the current drafting of clause 137. The amendment would make the Bill say what it means. 
 It would be interesting to find out why Government amendments Nos. 375 and 376 were debated under clause 127. There must be some good reason why you decided, Mr. Griffiths, that amendment No. 375 should be debated in conjunction with other 
 amendments to clause 127. The Minister's proposed amendment, which deletes the same words and inserts ''regulations may'', was basically the same. I do not oppose amendment No. 375 because it is similar to our amendment No. 530. If there is a good reason why the Minister is not speaking to it now as opposed to 10 clauses ago, I would like to hear it.

Phil Willis: I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 518 to 520, which relate to the same issue. Subsection (2) allows fitness requirements to be imposed on anyone providing education in a school regardless of whether they are employed and, if so, by whom. The coverage of education providers other than at schools or of those who do not provide education but have contact with children is, however, limited to those employed by LEAs in governing bodies. A business person coming into the school will not be covered. Frankly, I do not understand the distinction. Can the Minister bring some consistency to this aspect of the Bill?

Stephen Timms: I was asked why we discussed the Government amendment when we did. We did so because that is where the amendment appeared on the amendment paper. Why it appeared on the amendment paper where it did is for someone else to answer.
 I shall respond to the hon. Lady's points on amendments Nos. 530 and 531. In practice, the employer takes the decision on whether employees are sufficiently healthy to carry out their duties in accordance with the regulations. Under the clause, the Secretary of State can maintain or reproduce existing regulations that establish a framework and specify certain conditions. We will continue to apply the current regulations under the new legislation. They prevent employers from appointing anyone who is in receipt of a teachers' ill health retirement pension, which may demonstrate that the prospective employee has been declared permanently incapacitated for such employment. I hope that the continuity will reassure the hon. Lady. 
 On amendment No. 532, it would not be appropriate to restrict the definition of activities to those requiring special physical skills. We are considering ordinary health and fitness. Teaching, and other jobs that involve responsibility for school children, require the health and well-being necessary for the specific duties that the job entails. For example, ill health might impair a person's judgment or reduce alertness in the supervision of pupils. 
 On the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, the clause is wide-ranging. It covers people providing education in schools, further education, or outside schools. They may be employed on a contract of employment or for services with LEAs, school governing bodies or FE institutions. The clause takes account of the potential for greater flexibility and it will apply the provisions to those providing education whatever their employment circumstances. The hon. Gentleman's amendments would impose requirements that would apply beyond 
 the Secretary of State's ability to control, monitor and enforce them. They would extend the requirements to privately employed tutors, over whom the Secretary of State would not have the ability to enforce the provisions. That is the reason for the constraints that he has highlighted. The Secretary of State can impose the current requirements, and expect LEAs and institutions to play a part in ensuring compliance with them. On the basis of those clarifications, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.

Eleanor Laing: I am grateful to the Minister for his concise explanation of the clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 375, in page 82, line 22, leave out 
 ''The Secretary of State may by regulations'' 
and insert ''Regulations may''. 
 No. 376, in page 83, line 1, leave out 
''does not include an independent school'' 
and insert 
''means— 
 (a) a school maintained by a local education authority, or 
 (b) a special school not so maintained.''—[Mr. Timms.] 
 Clause 137, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 138 - Prohibition from teaching, &c. Amendment made: No. 377, in page 83, line 4, after ''State'', insert:

'', in relation to England, or the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales concurrently, in relation to Wales,''—[Mr. Timms.]

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 524, in page 83, line 4, after ''person'', insert ''or category of person''.
 The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to specify that a whole category of persons is prohibited from teaching. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments. Clause 138(4)(b) refers to a direction 
''on the grounds that the person is unsuitable to work with children''. 
Clearly, there may be many different reasons why that is the case, but it is possible to envisage certain categories of individual who, because of their criminal background or mental health, may never be safe with children. I am thinking particularly of paedophiles who have committed serious sexual offences against children. 
 Where there is a genuine concern, there may be some logic in permitting the Secretary of State to specify a broader measure relating to a whole category of individuals or offenders. That may not only avoid unnecessary bureaucracy and delay in the process, but help to provide a safe environment for children. This is a probing amendment and, as I said, I look forward to hearing the Minister's remarks. 
 Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting and valid point. I hope that I can persuade him that the clause already allows for the arrangement that he envisages. It does not prevent my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State from having a policy of making directions automatically in respect of persons who fall into a particular category. The provision allows the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the procedure for giving a direction, and those regulations will provide for her to make a direction automatically in any case in which prescribed conditions are met. The hon. Gentleman's important point is therefore covered.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to the Minister for satisfying my concerns. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 378, in page 83, line 24, leave out 
 'The Secretary of State may give a direction under this section' 
and insert 
 'A direction under this section may be given'. 
No. 379, in page 83, line 37, after 'State', insert 
', in relation to England, or the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales concurrently, in relation to Wales,'.—[Mr. Timms.]

Stephen Timms: I beg to move amendment No. 380, in page 83, line 39, leave out 'to whom directions relate' and insert
'who are subject to directions'.
 The amendment makes a wholly technical change, bringing the wording of clause 138(6) more in line with the way in which the rest of the clause is expressed. I commend it to the Committee. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 138, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 139 - Directions under section 138: appeal

Amendments made: No. 381, in page 84, line 2, leave out 
'the Secretary of State has given a direction' 
and insert 
'a direction has been given'. 
No. 382, in page 84, line 5, leave out 
'of the Secretary of State'. 
No. 383, in page 84, line 6, leave out 
'of the Secretary of State'. 
No. 384, in page 84, line 8, after 'State', insert 
', in relation to England, or the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales concurrently, in relation to Wales,'.—[Mr. Timms.]
 Clause 139, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 140 - specification of qualification or course

Amendments made: No. 385, in page 84, line 25, after 'England', insert 
', the National Assembly for Wales, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, the General Teaching Council for Wales'.
 No. 386, in page 84, line 30, after 'Agency', insert 
'or the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales'.
 No. 387, in page 84, line 31, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Touhig.] 
 Clause 140, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 141 disagreed to. 
 Clauses 142 to 144 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 13 - The general teaching councils for england and wales

Phil Willis: I beg to move amendment No. 503, in page 164, leave out lines 23 to 26.

Win Griffiths: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 504, in page 164, leave out lines 28 to 29.
 No. 505, in page 164, line 30, leave out 'provisional registration or full'. 
 No. 506, in page 164, line 31, leave out 'at the relevant time'. 
 No. 507, in page 164, line 31, leave out 'or were'. 
 No. 508, in page 164, leave out lines 33 to 40. 
 No. 509, in page 165, leave out line 3. 
 No. 510, in page 165, leave out lines 20 to 22. 
 No. 511, in page 166, leave out lines 10 to 12. 
 No. 512, in page 166, leave out lines 16 to 18. 
 No. 513, in page 167, leave out lines 16 to 19.

Phil Willis: This string of amendments may be the last business of the day, but it is important. When the GTC was set up under the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, it was envisaged that it would quickly become the master of its own destiny. The amendments challenge the Government's assumption that they can add new categories to registration by the GTC, two of which the Government hinted that they would like to have. One of those categories is trainee teachers and the other is teachers from overseas.
 The GTC is either an organisation for teachers who have the necessary qualifications to be registered, or it is not. If categories are going to be added to it, it will lose its power to act on behalf of the teaching profession. The adding of categories diminishes the GTC's authority and brings into question the fees that trainee teachers or teachers from overseas will pay. I respectfully suggest that only those who are fully registered should be members of the GTC. The Government may feel that there are powerful reasons to have additional categories, such as trainee teachers 
 and teachers from overseas. In that case, the Minister will make a case for them. I strongly argue that now that the GTC is up and running, it should be the master of its own destiny. If it is making a case for additional categories on behalf of the teaching profession, let the Minister make that case. I do not believe that the GTC has made that case. This is coming from the Government. I hope that the Government will not press ahead with granting new categories for registration with the GTC.

Graham Brady: Earlier I pressed the Minister for further clarification on specific points relating to the Government's intention on the status of provisional registration and the treatment of overseas trained teachers, and whether the Government intend all overseas trained teachers should be registered or only those seeking qualified teacher status. Several other questions arise with regard to the application of the registration rules. The Minister indicated earlier that he would add a little flesh to the debate and we look forward to hearing his remarks.

Stephen Timms: We seek to introduce the new category of provisional registration with the GTC in the interests of extending the advantages of regulation of the teaching profession. We intend to extend that form of registration by regulations to overseas trained teachers and trainee teachers, whether they are embarking on a course of initial teacher training or engaged in employment-based training that leads to qualified teacher status. In that way, such teachers would be brought within the framework of the GTC's disciplinary functions and we will want to consider with the GTC the extent to which that will be appropriate.
 I hope that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who expressed strong support for the GTC, will welcome that. In addition, as we said in the White Paper in September, we consider that registration should be extended to overseas and trainee teachers with a view to the GTC being able to screen them for their suitability. That would prevent individuals from embarking on an initial teacher training course and to be found unsuitable to join the profession only at the end of their training. I confirm that it is the intention that all overseas trained teachers should be provisionally registered, whether or not they are taking courses that lead to QTS. That addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West.

Graham Brady: If all overseas trained teachers should be provisionally registered, is there an appropriate maximum period of provisional registration or circumstances under which it might be expected to end, or is it possible and acceptable, under the Minister's proposals, that an overseas-trained teacher would be provisionally registered and simply remain so?
 Mr. Timms: When the hon. Gentleman raised this point earlier, he referred to the change of the period for which overseas teachers are currently able to teach and it is indeed, I am relieved to say, the period of four years that is the maximum.

Graham Brady: My understanding is that the four-year period is the maximum that can be spent as a temporary teacher. Presumably, following that period, it would be possible for a provisionally registered overseas-trained teacher either to become engaged on a more permanent contract or conceivably, and I seek clarification on this, to embark on a further period? Can the Minister enlighten us as to what regulations would prevent that from happening?

Stephen Timms: Not without QTS is the answer. But as the hon. Gentleman said we have extended the period, recognising the important contribution that a number of overseas teachers have made.
 Picking up the some of the points made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, the GTC does support these new categories of registration and, in particular, supports the new category of provisional registration, so this is not something that is being imposed and is unwelcome. 
 Amendments No. 503 to 513 would prevent the GTC from undertaking suitability assessments both for trainee teachers and overseas teachers. I do not think that that would be in the interest of promoting the highest professional standards. I accept that before we consider making regulations, there is a lot of work to be done. We will certainly need to consult the GTC on the timing of the regulations and on the council's readiness to bring this new group of teachers within the regulatory framework. In turn, the GTC will want to consult the teacher unions, employers and initial teacher-training providers before a provisional register is established. Further, the funding implications—the availability of resources—will also need to be thought through and, of course, spending plans for 2003-04 and beyond will be the subject of the spending review under way at the moment. Therefore, the process of implementing the new category of provisional registration will not be an immediate one. 
 The number of individuals eligible for provisional registration would be small in comparison to the 400,000 and more qualified teachers who are currently eligible to be registered with the GTC. We estimate that the first tranche of provisional registrations could amount to around 40,000 individuals. 
 I hope that hon. Members, on reflection, will recognise that this is a helpful move and that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Phil Willis: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I do not support all his comments. For instance, it is up to the teacher training agency and the relevant institutions to vet people so as to establish whether they are suitable. The idea that they might finish a course and then be found to be unsuitable is farcical, so I do not accept that. Also, until trainee teachers have qualified, their status is no different
 from, for example, a classroom assistant who is working in a school but who cannot become an associate member.
 I do not think that there is any difficulty in the GTC vetting overseas teachers without them becoming part and parcel of the associate registration process. I have, however, listened to what the Minister has said and I will reflect on it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Schedule 13 agreed to 
 Ordered, 
 That the Order of the Committee [11 December 2001] relating to programming, as amended [13 and 18 December 2001 and 10 January 2002 and today] be amended as follows— 
 in paragraph (1), the words 'and on Monday 21st January at half past Four o'clock' are omitted; 
 in paragraph (2), '19' is omitted and '18' inserted; 
 the entries for the 14th to 19th sittings are omitted and the following is inserted: 
 14th Clauses 115 to 126, Schedule 12, Clauses 127 to 144, Schedule 13 (so far as not previously concluded)  5.15 p.m.  15thClauses 115 to 126, Schedule 12, Clauses 127 to 144, Schedule 13 (so far as not previously concluded) 16thClauses 145 to 148, Schedule 14, Clauses 149 to 151, Schedule 15,  Column Number: 538 Clauses 152 to 170 (so far as not previously concluded)  10 p.m.  17th Clauses 171 to 181, Schedule 16, Clause 182, Schedule 17, Clause 183, Schedule 18, Clauses 184 to 189, Schedule 11, Clauses 190 to 193, Schedule 19, Clauses 194 to 200, Schedule 20, Clauses 201 to 211, Schedule 21, Schedule 22, new Clauses, new Schedules  18thClauses 171 to 181, Schedule 16, Clause 182, Schedule 17, Clause 183, Schedule 18, Clauses 184 to 189, Schedule 11, Clauses 190 to 193, Schedule 19, Clauses 194 to 200, Schedule 20, Clauses 201 to 211, Schedule 21, Schedule 22, new Clauses, new Schedules (so far as not previously concluded)—[Mr. Heppell.]  5 p.m.  Clauses 152 to 170 (so far as not previously concluded) 
   Mr. John Heppell (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): I thank you for your tolerance, Mr. Griffiths. I thank hon. Members for helping us to get through our business today. Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]  Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Five o'clock till Tuesday 22 January at half-past Ten o'clock. The following Members attended the Committee  Griffiths, Mr. Win (Chairman)  Bailey, Mr.  Brady, Mr.  Coaker, Mr.  Flint, Caroline  Francis, Dr.  Grayling, Chris  Heppell, Mr.  Kumar, Dr.  Laing, Mrs.  Lewis, Mr. Ivan  Miliband, Mr.  O'Brien, Mr. Stephen  Purnell, James  Timms, Mr.  Touhig, Mr.  Turner, Mr. Andrew  Willis, Mr.

John Heppell: I thank you for your tolerance, Mr. Griffiths. I thank hon. Members for helping us to get through our business today.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Five o'clock till Tuesday 22 January at half-past Ten o'clock.